tvc184

He is unprofessional, he is sometimes silly, he makes crazy statements and he beat the best the Democrats claimed that they could put up. They say statistics are for losers such as we gained more yards in the football game but got beat 42-21. Hillary and her supporters proves that saying with an exclamation. The Dems are now scrambling after losing the Senate and House elections for four straight cycles. Keep on worrying about popular vote. The last three presidents have been in office for 8 years so you might have until 2024 to worry about your next viable candidate.

First off, Trump has been doing that all along and got elected doing so. Even several Democrats are now calling for Nancy Pelosi to move aside as being irrelevant and being out of touch with the public. I find this funny as the Democrats nationwide and very much so in this forum, were spelling the doom of the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago. "What are you going to do after Hillary destroys Trump?" and other such dire predictions. Members of this forum predicted the end of conservatism and Republicans. So my question is this. How did the darling of the liberal left, the heir apparent to Barack Obama, the claimed smartest woman in the world... lose the election? Now her supporters, who themselves have set the Democrats back several steps by not selecting a decent candidate, are now hanging on a few more losing votes being cast for her in her loss as a talking point. They are claiming that Trump is making crazy statements.... which is true and he has been doing it since day one. So Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million, 2.3 million or 4 million. She is also finished in politics and may have ended several other Democrats with her. As I watch some Democratic legislators say, we have found that we are out of touch with the public. When a guy like Trump, who is not a good candidate, wins the elections, it is hard to argue with them. But of course, people in internet forums will continue to do so by worrying about what he tweets instead of taking a long look in the mirror.

That is a great movie by the way. If you don't mind reading subtitles, it is a top tier movie. I have read a couple of books on the end and inside the bunker and this movie follows history.

Where are the cops when you need one? In this case right there. No telling how many lives the officer saved by immediately shooting the suspect.

Maybe some low fives... behind closed doors..........

At this point why does anyone care?

I care about few promises. I care about the Second Amendment, about conservative or constitutional judges and prosecutors being appointed to the federal courts and attorneys and a couple of other issues. Trump was not my choice by several people. Out of 17 people running for the Republican primary he was near the bottom. When it came time for the general election I did not vote for Trump because he was going to build a wall, because he was going to prosecute Hillary or some of the other stuff that he was spouting because he thought it sounded cool. In short, I did not vote for Trump because he would keep all of his promises, I did so because I was afraid that Hillary would keep hers. If Trump says he will sign an assault weapon ban and other major gun restrictions or if he appoints clones of Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the SCOTUS, I will be very disappointed. Even then there will be no loss as Hillary would be guaranteed to do exactly that. A Hillary vote is a guarantee of horrible legislature and at worst, Trump is a roll of the dice with loaded dice in conservative's favor.

The best part, "We have everything except no policemen or firemen.... because we haven't found any that would live here".

The most true to life police show as far as the way they investigated crimes. Got to love Joe Friday-isms.

What is one of the funniest things that Obama has repeatedly and continues to say is (I just saw it again today), "I don't want to rush to judge". WHAT? Anytime he can get involved in a local police officer's actions he rushes to judgment and almost invariably is wrong.

He isn't called the Divider In Chief for nothing. What may be the most disgusting by Obama is the memorial service for the officers gunned down in Dallas. He was supposed to be speaking in honor of police officers that gave their lives in the line of duty but he chose it as an occasion to talk about slavery and Jim Crow laws. What does slavery that ended more than 150 years ago got to do with officers being killed defending people? Nothing but no chance to divide shall be passed.

And locally I have not heard an APB in over 30 years although it might still be in use. In this area we usually use ATL-Attempt To Locate or regionally I have seen BOLO-Be On Lookout. Some police language is generally universal in this country but some tends to be regional. An example might be like the term "skel" or "skell". In the northeast the police use (or at least used to) use the term to describe the homeless or vagrants on the street. If you say that to an officer in the south he will likely have no clue what you are talking about. Universal language is usually in the form of dispositions after a call is made like see report/see investigation, gone on arrival (GOA), unable to locate (UTL), subject/person located, see accident report, etc. The 10 codes, numbered codes, signals, alerts, etc., can be way different. An example is that locally 10-1 means that your radio transmission is broken up and I can't understand you. 10-2 means loud and clear. In Norfolk, VA 10-1 and 10-2 means officer needs assistance which is the ultimate call for help. A call for assistance is like I am in deep such as a shootout, a bad fight, etc. In this area 10-2 simply means I can now here you clearly. Locally we use the word "Code" such as Code 1, 2 and so on. Other areas use "Signal" also in addition to 10 codes, and codes. I know in Florida Signal 0 used to mean (and maybe still does) officer needs assistance. Say that around here and an officer will likely reply, "You want me to signal what?". Clear as mud?

Stopping a described suspect is not profiling in any sense of the law. To be a lawful stop however, there has to be a limited time frame and distance from the crime scene and that is in any case, not just racial profiling. The more general the description, the less reason to justify a detention. If it is a city the size of Beaumont and there is an armed robbery at 3:00AM and a description given, even a general description, and a look alike is found 10 blocks away 15 minutes after the robbery, it will likely be viewed as a reasonable detention. If it was a tall thin black male with a white t-shirt on three days ago and you see someone fitting that description, it will likely not be viewed as a lawful detention. Those are kind of easy extremes to get the point across but every single police interaction between them and the public is open to question. The police can lawfully talk to you with a chance encounter/consensual contact, a detention with reasonable suspicion or with probable cause. Even if an officer walks up and says "hi" while you are on the street, if he continues to speak to you other than just passing you by it can be called into question. If an officer just walking down the street sees you and says something like, "Come here for a moment" and you stop to talk to him, that is a detention under the Fourth Amendment. When an officer does or says anything that would make a reasonable person believe that he had better stop, it is a detention even if nothing further happens.

So we have the right to an opinion but if that opinion is that someone else is wrong, it is automatically wrong? You are talking in circles. Let's see, if you believe someone is wrong but you say they are wrong then you are wrong for saying that they are wrong but the person that you are talking about is also wrong because he believes that you are wrong. Talk about a paradox. That also means that no one is ever right.

I just saw that this person was released and not a suspect.

Tell most of the protesters that Kerry is the Secretary of State and most will probably say, "Wasn't she in Django Unchained?".

The sad part is that most of the people complaining have no clue as to the founding of the country or what any of it means. Ask the same people protesting and it is likely that more than half of them cannot name the current vice president, the secretary of state or both.

Probably more than 95% of cases (both criminal and civil) settle out of court. It is many times in civil court to settle than it is to fight it. It is a business decision. If it costs and additional $5 million to win and prove you are not responsible or $1 million to settle, businesses will almost always take the cost effective ends by offering the settlement. It is called deep pockets. You sue someone with a lot of money for the hopes that any defense will be so expensive as to make an offer likely without having to prove your case.

Thoughts are that for the Democrats or left wing believers, free thought is no longer a right or sought out. Everyone must march in lockstep. All others banned. The incessant whining by left wing loons is almost unbelievable. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually believes that pure crap spit out or if it is just a political ploy to keep something in the news. It is like an entire room full of 5 year olds throwing a temper tantrum.

Surely this is for comedy relief. If anyone actually believes any of the fear mongering that is off the chain, they need to take a deep breath and come back to reality. Internment camps? Registering? Fear of going back 50 years? Next someone will claim that lunch lines separated by race are being proposed and that minorities will get 3/5th's of a vote.

I agree everyone should be vetted. You however continue to support a party that thinks open borders are okay and no one gets vetted, especially if they can get past the border even if it isn't thrown open. You don't put people in housing, you make it available. Remember we are talking about people that are not in this country and claim they are fleeing from something. Being interned is forced. I clearly said in my statement that you quoted, not internment. Your zeal to find fault for some reason makes you unable to see what is actually written. If anyone is receiving counseling it isn't because of what someone else thinks.

time?

That was brought up by the GOP when Reid did that. If you break your own rules to do it to us, you'd better hope we aren't in charge next. Oops!!

Yes, Smith is correct and you are wrong. Do you lose your right to protest if you do not vote? Obviously not. Do you have to vote? Obviously not. Then you go on with the working class and working hard and other such stuff. None of that has anything to do with what Smith said. It seems hypocritical to not vote, say you don't believe in the system and then complain about the system that you couldn't take 15 minutes out of your day to vote for. Can you? Sure you can. You have no obligation to do anything in order to use your First Amendment right of freedom of speech. If someone doesn't want to vote, more power to them. Complain away if you want but you seem like a phony if you complain about the status quo but can't take time to do anything about it. And does your vote matter? Ask the Democrats and are now the whiners in chief after they didn't think their vote was needed.

So what if a Trump supporter believes something? I seem to remember that quite a few Obama supporters that were members of BLM were chanting that the police should fry like bacon. I guess Obama condones the murder of police officers. He certainly gave moral backing to BLM after some members make their chants of frying officers. If Trump is responsible for any belief by anyone that voted for him, shouldn't Obama be held to the same standard? It makes perfect sense using the same rationale of, "A Trump supporter says.....". Internment camps for people that are in this country is stupid. Camps (not internment) for people that are looking to come in but not yet here might make sense. They want to get here with our permission. If they are overseas and in camps with tents or other adequate housing while waiting to prove their past, it seems okay to me. In fact it could be humanitarian giving them a decent place to stay before any acceptance to get into the country. As an example the Vietnamese, who were our allies in a decade of war and were fleeing after the USA backed out of an agreement to defend the country if they were attacked again by North Vietnam, were placed in camps in Guam and the Philippines to begin with. They were then transferred to "housing" in the USA before gaining true freedom and resident status. I am fairly certain that the USA owed them something after signing an agreement and then reneging. Even so, they were placed in camps and/or housed in two different countries before being released into the rest of the USA. Some of the Muslims fleeing are owed what by the USA? Everyone wants to come here so I understand their desires but what other connection is there? It is like the Vietnamese who were war allies? If so, where? The idea of "internment" seems like nonsense but being placed in camps or housing before reaching US shores does not.